Canon City, Colorado (CNN) -- Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.
A fetus is not legally a person until it is born, the hospital's lawyers have claimed in its defense. And now it may be up to the state's Supreme Court to decide.

Typical back pedalling and underhanded cowardice. Not a single shred of honour amongst any of these particular Catholic rats.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

Canon City, Colorado (CNN) -- Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.
A fetus is not legally a person until it is born, the hospital's lawyers have claimed in its defense. And now it may be up to the state's Supreme Court to decide.

That's typical. They want everyone else to be responsible. They want no one to take birth control or have an abortion....yet do very little to provide any real long-term help and then they scratch their heads over why the catholic church world wide is shrinking...

It's very much like Judaism -- why people might have gotten fed up with all the rules...why they peobably invented a new god (Jesus).

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

But these lawyers are not arguing in a Catholic court, or even a religious one. They're arguing this case in a secular court of law, with secular laws, where decisions are made based on those laws and not (officially) on any laws of any religion. If there is legal precedent in that court to define life "legally" beginning at birth, then that is the point these lawyers should, must, argue.

Anything else would be a disservice to their client, regardless of their own or even their client's beliefs on this legal point.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

But these lawyers are not arguing in a Catholic court, or even a religious one. They're arguing this case in a secular court of law, with secular laws, where decisions are made based on those laws and not (officially) on any laws of any religion. If there is legal precedent in that court to define life "legally" beginning at birth, then that is the point these lawyers should, must, argue.

Anything else would be a disservice to their client, regardless of their own or even their client's beliefs on this legal point.

No, if the client really believes that life starts at conception, it is hypocritical for the client to use this argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

But these lawyers are not arguing in a Catholic court, or even a religious one. They're arguing this case in a secular court of law, with secular laws, where decisions are made based on those laws and not (officially) on any laws of any religion. If there is legal precedent in that court to define life "legally" beginning at birth, then that is the point these lawyers should, must, argue.

Anything else would be a disservice to their client, regardless of their own or even their client's beliefs on this legal point.

Well, the attorneys are hired by the hospital. If I'm not mistaken it's a catholic hospital -- they can and should dictate how the attorneys proceed. The attorney's can be fired for not adhering to the wishes or religion preference of the client.

Right now, it seems the catholic hospital has lost faith -- this is a hornet's nest because if they get a judge to agree "life" begins at birth....it's got wider implications than just this case.

They can't have their cake and eat it. I suspect they'll settle and the whole thing will quietly go away.

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

But these lawyers are not arguing in a Catholic court, or even a religious one. They're arguing this case in a secular court of law, with secular laws, where decisions are made based on those laws and not (officially) on any laws of any religion. If there is legal precedent in that court to define life "legally" beginning at birth, then that is the point these lawyers should, must, argue.

Anything else would be a disservice to their client, regardless of their own or even their client's beliefs on this legal point.

No, if the client really believes that life starts at conception, it is hypocritical for the client to use this argument.

So what? I never said it wasn't hypocritical. but I don't see anything in that story that says the lawyers are on trial for hypocrisy, nor the church, so what's the point?

The guy isn't suing the church to give him some holy sacrament or something. He's suing a hospital for damages and expecting a financial settlement in US legal tender. That's a secular suit for secular damage with secular consequences and requires a secular response.

Is it a black eye on the hospital and the church for taking this line of defense? Sure it is. The hypocrisy is obvious to everyone.

But that is irrelevant to the secular lawsuit.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein